Spits and Dummies – various post-election observations

What I love about election night is that it’s really the only night when anyone in politics tells the truth.

One such example was Maxine McKew’s assessment of what went wrong for Labor. She was spot on in her assessment that Labor’s problems “go back to last year when we never quite claimed victory over the global financial crisis.” It’s absolutely correct that Labor did a pathetic job of selling their achievements. But for her honesty, McKew was accused in the media of having a dummy-spit similar to Cheryl Kernot in 1998 when she effectively complained that she wasn’t given a safe enough seat to run in. There is obviously no analogy because McKew has said earlier in the interview that she had asked to stand in a marginal seat.

If you wanted to see a real dummy-spit, you had to tune into Insiders this morning, where Bill Shorten shot Barrie Cassidy a filthy look for suggestion that “if it does come to that sort of constitutional crisis Bill Shorten just by the way, your mother-in-law, the Governor-General, would have to make the call.”
Shorten responded with barely concealed fury, “Oh I assume that’s a bit of humour to finish the interview.”

He did go on to give the right answer, which is, “In terms of the Governor-General's role she will carry out her role I’m sure,” but added, “In terms of any other point that you may be humorously alluding to I’m not going to impugn that office.”

This is why Bill Shorten should not be allowed back near a campaign any time soon. If a similar question had been put to either Rudd or Gillard, they would have either given the straight answer or prefaced it with something like, “That’s a good question and I’m glad you asked it because it gives me the opportunity to address these concerns.” Whether Cassidy was being cheeky or not, the fact is that Quentin Bryce is now in the most uncomfortable position any Governor General has been in since John Kerr in 1975. It neither impugns the office nor questions the Governor General’s integrity to point out that having her son-in-law as a key player in the ALP can only increase that discomfort.


 
What will not be said by any of the paid commentators is that this election didn’t just see a rejection of both major parties, but also of the major media players. By far the best analysis was by independent writers, mostly on ’blogs.


 
Finally, as both parties try to form government, the Liberal party must stop talking about having the “moral right.”
It’s called enterprise bargaining, arseholes! Now you know how it feels.

So it's come to this,

After weeks of both parties backpedaling on stated principles and dodging real debate, it's come down to who can stay up the longest versus who buys the blokiest drink.

It has disappointed me to see some of those who rightfully bemoan the lack of policy discussion in this campaign, now jumping on the "Abbott bought a poofter drink," bandwagon.  I don't have much to say about Tony Abbott that's complimentary, but I will say that I don't give a flying whether he or Gillard drink tequila slammers or Shirley Temples, it's got nothing to do with their policies or abilities.

Legitimate Questions for Sarah Palin

Sarah, I read with interest your questions for the president. Now I have some for you.

You believe in the US constitution, don't you? You believe in people's freedom to worship as they see fit? If so, what's the problem?

You believe in small government, right? You believe that big government should get out of people's lives, don't you? If so, then what business does the president have in telling anyone what they should build where?

You make an interesting point that having the right to do something doesn't mean you should. Would you extend the same principle to – oh, let's say – gun control as well? Or would that be an attack on freedom and a trashing of the constitution? How can you try to have it both ways?

And you believe in the free market don't you? So if you object to the owners' plans for the site, why not just outbid them? Why not let the market decide?

In short, how can you justify a position on this issue that contradicts your positions on just about everything else?

I believe these are legitimate questions to ask.

- Bill

How Not to Jump the Queue

I have tried to keep a fairly broad point of view for the political and social commentary that I post here.  However, on the issue of boat people and so-called illegal immigration, I feel compelled to share a personal story.

My wife is American.  She is currently in the US and we are going through the visa application process.  It will take up to six months or more before we get an answer on that.  If you think it’s hard being away from each other for so long, you’re damn right.  Thank God for the internet!

There were a number of ways we could have gone about it.  She could have come in on a tourist visa and then gotten a bridging visa while we applied for the partner visa here.  That would have been perfectly legal, but we felt it would be dishonest for her to enter the country on a tourist visa when we both know we have every intention of her staying for good if at all possible.  So instead, we did what we felt was right by having her apply for a partner visa while in her home country.

Let me be clear on one thing: we would dearly love to cut the process short.  We wish we could just fast-forward to when it’s all been done.  But do you know one option we never considered?  We never considered having L make her way to Asia, get onto a rickety boat and risk her life bobbing along the Indian ocean for a couple of months in the hope that she might wash up on the coast of Western Australia.  Not once did we look at all the ‘queue-jumpers’ and think, “Hey, why don’t we try that?”

So to suggest that anyone would try that – with or without people-smugglers – if they weren’t desperate and had better options, really defies all logic. 

I don’t know of anyone whose life has been adversely affected by boat arrivals, but perhaps that says more about the circles I move in, so if you do, please educate me.  Obviously we can’t have a complete open-door policy or it will become an opportunity for real queue-jumpers, but the debate as it is framed right now is bullshit.

Both parties have scrambled to appeal to people’s lowest instincts and are proposing cuts in immigration.  I’ll tell you this much: if this beat-up of an issue makes things any harder than they already are for my wife and me, then I’m going to blame a few people, and I don’t mean the ones on the boats.

How I Vote - for those who wonder, and those who think they know....

In the course of some Twitter comments and discussions, more than a couple of people have suggested or implied that I am a one-eyed Labor supporter. In fairness, I can see why some might think so if they take certain comments in isolation, just as some might leap to the same conclusion from certain posts here. Allow me to address such assumptions....

I'm not going to tell you how I vote, but I'll tell you this much:
I voted for the first time in the 1990 federal election. Since then, in state and federal elections, upper and lower house, I have voted Labor, I have voted Liberal, I have voted Democrat, I have voted National and I have voted independent. I don't think I've ever voted according to the card, and I've never voted for the same party in both the House and Senate. Although I haven't moved in that time, the electoral boundaries have, so the electorates I've lived in have vacillated between marginal Labor, blue-ribbon National and marginal Liberal.

I'm a swinging voter because I'd be a damn fool not to be. Professional pundits and former prime ministers have told us that this election will be won or lost in marginal electorates. No shit, Sherlock? Next they'll be telling us it's the swinging voters in those electorates who will make the difference. Voting out of habit or tradition means parties and candidates never have to earn your vote. Privately, parties despise swinging voters. They regard them as flaky and disloyal. They don't have to impress habitual voters; all they have to do is not be the other side.

This is why I have a profound disagreement with those who say it would create a healthier democracy if we had voluntary voting. Their reasoning is that parties would then have to inspire people to get out and vote if they wanted to win. I think it would be the opposite. I think both parties would benefit from voter apathy because a party has nothing to fear from people who don't vote for them; they're only worried about people who would vote against them.

Sometimes I vote according to who I want, sometimes I vote according to who I don't want. You don't have to look for someone to vote for. No matter how uninspiring the choices are, there's always a least worst. There are plenty of times when my last preference has been chosen before my first.

That's how I choose at any election. It will be interesting to see if people still assume I'm a Labor man when the state election comes around later this year.

I don’t know much about IT, but I know who I don’t like

So, as far as I can work out, the Liberals' broadband policy goes something like this:

a) We don't really know what we're doing, but

b) Anything Labor does is bad, so

c) We'll do something else, therefore

d) Our policy is better.

e) Why is everyone laughing?

The Libs wouldn't even have a broadband policy if it wasn't for the sake of having to respond to Labor having one. There's a beautiful summary of the inanity of the debate here: http://www.geordieguy.com/?p=522

Prime-Time Flame Wars

In addition to the battle between Labor and Liberal, this election campaign also has a side-skirmish – the battle between old and new media. Many proponents of 'new' media – that is, here on the intermanet – like to scoff at 'old' media's response to the new. Broadcast and print media doesn't really know what to make of news and analysis through 'blogging and social media. Many television news services have added segments to report on what's happening online, completely missing the point that if we wanted to see what was being discussed on Facebook, we'd check Facebook. We have the internet too. I always miss the Twitter comments that are displayed on the screen during Q and A, because I'm busy watching the Twitter stream online.

Even some of those from the press gallery who have embraced the immediacy of online networks are finding it difficult to adjust to. Every report of Mark Latham's stunts over the weekend had him "posing" as a journalist. This is not technically true. To say he was posing implies that he was there under false pretences. The truth is, he had accreditation, obtained for him by Channel 9 as a reporter for 60 Minutes. It is fair to say that Latham is only there to insert himself into the story. However, if using the campaign for career advancement and self-aggrandisement makes one a poser, then there are a few actual journalists who, through their use of social media, have revealed themselves to be posing just as much as Latham is.

The interesting twist today, is that television adopted an aspect of 'new media' that traditional outlets usually use as evidence of the internet's deficiencies. They started a flame-war. On Sunday evening, Laurie Oakes said it didn't speak well of 60 Minutes or Channel 9 that they would hire Latham and allow him to behave as he did. Latham used a live spot on Sky News to hit back at Oakes, implying he was a coward. Then on 9 News tonight, Oakes was given a free kick back at Latham. If they were on a forum, they would probably both have their accounts suspended for a week.

That much doesn't surprise me. What does surprise me is how people have praised Laurie Oakes for seeming to bite the hand that feeds. He has done nothing of the sort. Oh yes, it looks good to see Laurie criticising his own network - so good, that everyone watched it. Ker-ching! Oakes can take the high moral ground and call for Latham's sacking all he likes, but he wouldn't be able to talk about it if Nine hadn't hired Latham in the first place, and so long as Oakes keeps talking about Latham and bagging his bosses, we'll keep tuning in. Nine can't lose. The Laurie vs Latham spot was introduced on National Nine News with the headline that Latham continues to be a distraction to the campaign. And who gave him the power to be a distraction? Channel 9! And who is saying how bad it is? Channel 9! And where does Oakes deliver his rebuttals? Channel 9! Just wait for some other pundit to come out and call it great television. No matter what Laurie says, so long as he's talking about the Latham controversy and not boring policy stuff, he's vindicating Nine's decision to employ Latham.

Whether any of Latham's 'reports' ever go to air, Nine has won. If they sacked him right now, it would still mean they get the story and the ratings. If you're disgusted by this whole process, the only way to protest is to not watch Channel 9, regardless of what happens next. If and when they sack Mark Latham, they should be given all the praise that would befit someone who has finally decided to stop kicking puppies.